Effect of lupine (Lupinus Spp.) intercropping and seed proportion on

Vol. 9(30), pp. 2287-2297, 24 July, 2014
DOI: 10.5897/AJAR2014.8729
Article Number: 47499E346222
ISSN 1991-637X
Copyright © 2014
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article
http://www.academicjournals.org/AJAR
African Journal of Agricultural
Research
Full Length Research Paper
Effect of lupine (Lupinus Spp.) intercropping and seed
proportion on the yield and yield component of small
cereals in North western Ethiopia
Yayeh Bitew 1*, Fetien Abay2 and Tadesse Dessalegn3
1
Adet Agricultural Research Centre, Institute of Amhara Agricultural Research, P. O. Box 08, Bahir Dare, Ethiopia.
2
Department of Plant Science, Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia.
3
Department of Plant Science, Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.
Received 2 April, 2014; Accepted 26 June, 2014
Wheat, barley and finger millet as a major crop and lupine as a companion crop are food crops often
traditionally grown in an intercropping in North Western Ethiopia. The experiment was conducted on
intercropping of lupine (Lupinus albus L.) with wheat (Triticum aestivum), barely (Hordeum vulgar) and
finger millet (Eleusine coracana) in 2009 at Adet Agricultural research station. The treatments were sole
wheat at a seed rate of 175 kg/ ha, sole barley at a seed rate of 125 kg/ ha, sole finger millet at a seed
rate of 30 kg/ ha, sole lupine at a seed rate of 90 kg/ h and 25, 50 and 75% of the sole lupine seed rate
combined with each full cereal seed rate to determine the effect of lupine intercropping and seed
proportion on the growth, yield and yield component; and lodging of wheat, barley and finger millet.
The trial layout was a completely randomized block design with three replications. SAS software’s were
used to compute the analysis of variance. Increasing in lupine seed proportion in a mixture, delay in
finger millet days to heading and maturity also significantly increased. The yield and yield component
of most cereals were not significantly affected when they were intercropped with lupine in all seeding
ratios except finger millet plant height, harvest index and wheat total biomass yield. Hence, growing
cereals in association with lupine was not showed its yield reduction and the farmer’s primary objective
of maintaining a ‘full’ cereal yield was attained. Intercropping lupine with cereals gave physical support
for cereals particularly in high lupine seed proportion. The combined yield advantage was greater than
one in the cases of lupine-wheat followed by lupine-finger millet mixtures at all seeding ratios. Hence,
two of the best combinations which were gave higher land use efficiency are the lupine-wheat mixture
at the 75:100 seeding ratio (49.4%) followed by the lupine-finger millet mixtures at the 75:100 seeding
ratio (29.4%).
Key words: Wheat, barley, finger millet, lupine, intercropping, seed proportion.
INTRODUCTION
Intercropping is the cropping system involving the
growing of two or more crops in the same piece of land at
the same time or relayed which could compute for growth
resources for certain growth period. This farming practice
*Corresponding author. E-mail:[email protected]
Author(s) agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 International License
2288
Afr. J. Agric. Res.
is a popular crop production system used in subsistence
tropical agriculture and is very common in the semi arid
areas of Africa (Connolly et al., 2001). It is also a
cropping practice that possess the potential of providing
valuable ecosystem services such as improved pest
control (Mitchell et al., 2002), increased resource use
efficiency (Hauggaard-Nielsen et al., 2001), lowered
weed infestation levels (Liebman and Dyck ,1993) in crop
livestock mixed farming system.
In many parts of Ethiopia, farmers traditionally harvest
only once in a year on sole crop basis even in high rain
fall areas. Moreover, in the past much research efforts
have been directed towards improving technology for
sole cropping. Such traditional farming did not insure the
production of adequate food for a family especially under
conditions where average land holding is very small
(Nigusei, 1994). In Ethiopia, different crops are grown
traditionally in mixtures by small farmers to satisfy dietary
needs, spread the period of peak demand for labor and
minimize the risk associated with climate conditions.
Thus, the most important intercrop mixtures used by
farmers in Ethiopia can be grouped in to four broad
categories: cereal-cereal; cereal-legume; tree-annual
crop and legum-legum associations’ (Yayeh et al., 2014).
Intercropping cereal with a legume, however, is relatively
the most common in most parts of the country.
Cereals are the major food sources in Ethiopia and
farmers regard the cereal as the major component of an
intercrop (EIAR, 1992). Indeed, the traditional objective
has been to produce a full yield of cereal (as much as
with a sole crop) while the associated legume yield is
considered as additional yield (Yayeh et al., 2014).
Lupine (Lupinus Spp.) is one of the major highland food
legumes grown in Ethiopia (Yayeh et al., 2014). Its
production is limited in North West Ethiopia and mainly
used to prepare local drinks (Ali et al., 2006). It is grown
on an area of 25,526 ha with an annual average
production and yield of 287, 17.3 t/ha and 1100 kg/ha
(CSA, 2004), respectively. Out of this, 37% of the total
land was cultivated by West Gojam. Farmers use
intercropping different legumes with other crops as one of
the strategies to overcome the shortage of arable land
and attribute several crops for diversification of crop
products, high productivity per unit area and for
maintenance and improvement of soil fertility (Aleligne
and Steven, 1987). Lune have been traditionally gown as
intercrop with cereals and oil crops by low input farmers
and is restricted to low-income classes, to times of
drought (Jansen, 2006). They grow it as traditional
additive system of intercropping in which lupine used as
minor crop and cereals as major crop (Yayeh et al., 2014).
The current trend in global agriculture is to search for
highly productive, sustainable and environmentally
friendly cropping systems (Crews and Peoples, 2004).
One of the strategies to improve food security would be
the inclusion of grain legumes either intercropped with
cereal or in rotation with it. Farmers in West Gojam are
seriously constrained by small farm size of 1.42
ha/household due to increase human population (CSA,
2007). Thus, intercropping lupine with cereals is
cultivated to a greater extent than before because of its
adaptability, stability and feasibility of production under
low soil fertility status and biotic. It is also an annual
legume, and non climbing growth habit and has high
levels of protein (Jansen, 2006).
Moreover, the tape root system of lupine could exploit
water and nutrients from deeper soil layers than cereals
(Jansen, 2006). Jansen (2006) and Gardner and Boundy
(1983) also point out wheat intercropped with lupine has
access to a larger pool of Phosphors, Manganese and
Nitrogen than sole-cropped wheat. Production cereals in
intercrop with lupine could also provide a rotational yield
response to main season crops (Petch and Smith, 1985).
However, management of cereals intercropped with
lupine follows simple natural principles, and its practice is
limited only by the imagination of farmers. They used less
than 25% lupine seed rate with full cereal seed rate
(Yayeh et al., 2014). No published studies have been
made in research areas to improve the productivity of this
kind of cropping system. As a result, the yield of cereal
crops vary considerably among farmers and in most
cases the yield advantage is unknown. Therefore, the
objective of this paper was to estimate the effect of lupine
and seeding proportion on major cereal crops in lupinecereal intercropping systems.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Description of the study area
The study was conducted in the 2009 rain fed cropping season at
Adet Agricultural Research station (AARC), North Western Ethiopia.
It is located between 11°17’ N latitude and 37°43′ E longitude with
an altitude of 2240 m.a.s.l (AARC, 2002).
According to Gonder soil testing laboratory center (2009), the soil
characteristics of experiment site were clay as shown Table 1.The
study area receives a uni-modal rainfall which extends early June to
late September with regard to its monthly distribution June, July and
August are the three important months with high rain fall and more
or less uniform spatial distribution (Aleligne and Steven, 1987).
According to Adet Metrological station (2009), the total annual
rainfall during the experimental growing season was 975.3 mm
which is less than the 23 year average total annual rainfall (1253.4
mm) (Figure 1). The mean monthly minimum and maximum
temperatures during the growing season were 11 and 27.2°C which
is greater than the 23 year average mean monthly minimum (9.1°C)
and maximum (25.7°C) temperatures (Figure 2).
Field experimental design
Plots were laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD)
with three replications. Spacing between plots and replications were
0.5 and 1 m respectively. There were nine intercropping in additive
series (25, 50 and 75% of recommended lupine seed rate with full
cereal seed rates) and four sole cropping systems (pure stands of
lupine, wheat, barley and finger millet). The plot size was 12 m2
(2*6 m). Sole lupine was common to all lupine-cereal combinations
Bitew et al.
2289
Table 1. Physico-chemical properties of the soil at Adet research station.
Chemical soil properties
PH
6.06
OC (%)
2.47
Total N (%)
0.18
Av.P (ppm)
1.98
CEC
37.97
Mechanical properties
Sand (%)
28.00
Clay (%)
46.72
Silt (%)
25.28
Class
Clay
CEC: Cation exchange capacity measured in cmol (+)/kg soil (NHAc), Av.P:
Available phosphors in ppm and OC: organic carbon.
Figure 1. Mean monthly rainfall (mm) of the study area for 23 year average and 2009
cropping season.
for comparison purpose.
Sowing method and management practices
The experiment was conducted in rainfed season (2009). Additive
series intercropping system was used which is cropping of the base
crop/cereals at optimum level and the addition of a proportion of the
minor crop/ lupine with the main crop being the one of primary
importance because of economic or food production reasons in the
area. Pure stands of lupine, wheat, barley and finger millet as well
as nine lupine-cereal mixtures in three seeding ratios in additive
series (25, 50 and 75% of recommended lupine seed rate with full
cereal seed rates) were planted. Sole cropping of lupine, wheat,
barley and finger millet were planted at a recommended seeding
rate of 90, 175, 125 and 30 kg/ha, respectively. In sole cropping,
lupine was planted in an inter-row space of 30 cm; and wheat,
barley and finger millet were broadcasted.
In the intercropping system, first lupine row was established in
the inter-row spacing of 120, 66 and 35 cm for the 25, 50 and 75%
seed proportion, respectively, and full cereal components were
broadcasted. Lupine was planted after establishments of cereal
crops. For all intercropping systems space between lupine plants
were 5 cm. All plots were received a basal application of
Diammonium phosphate (DAP) at the rate of 100 kg/ha at planting.
For cereal components, 100 kg/ha Urea was applied except the
sole lupine treatment assuming the lupine was benefit from selffixed nitrogen. One third basal and two third top-dressed application
of UREA were applied during planting time and at tillering stage of
sole and intercropped cereals, respectively.
Data collected
Agronomic attributes of cereals: Plant height in cm, spike length
(cm) of barley and wheat and finger length (cm) of finger millet,
seed per spike of barley and wheat, tiller per plant, finger per plant,
stand cover per meter square, thousand seed weight, biomass and
grain yield; and harvest index (%) and lodging index (%).
Moreover, land use efficiency was also determined by land
equivalent ratio (LER) which was calculated using the formula
developed by Willey and Osiru (1972):
LER = (YAB/YAA) + (YBA/YBB)
2290
Afr. J. Agric. Res.
Monthly average temperature (°C) for 2009
Tem perature (°C )
Monthly average temperature (°C) for 23 years average
Figure 2. Mean maximum and minimum air temperature (T°C) of the study area for 23 year
average and 2009 cropping season.
YAB= Yield of crop A when mixed with crop B
YBA= Yield of crop B when mixed with crop A
YAA= Yield from sole planted crop A
YBB= Yield from sole planted crop B
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Lodging /index /percentage was proposed to be calculated using
the formula developed by Caldicott and Nuttall (1979). Lodging
scale was from 0 to 5 where, 0 mean no lodged plants and 5 mean
plants completely lodged.
The influence of intercropped lupine crop proportion on
cereal days to 50% heading and 50% maturity in lupinecereal intercropping is presented in Table 2. The analysis
of variance indicated that these treatments significantly
influenced (P<0.01) only days to maturity of finger millet
in the case of lupine-finger millet intercropping (Table 2).
Days to maturity for sole finger millet were 158 as
compared to 162 for 50:100 seeding ratio which took
longer duration to maturity (Table 2). Result of this
investigation also showed that increase in companion
crop proportion in a mixture, delay in finger millet days to
heading and maturity also significantly increased.
Intercropping of lupine with finger millet delays the days
to maturity of finger millet as compared to sole finger
millet perhaps due to competition for light in which the
two crops were growing together for a long period of time.
The second reason for delayed in maturity date of finger
millet across increasing seeding ratio could also be
attributed to as the minor crop proportion increases, the
intra-specific competition between lupine stands hastens
Data analysis
Data were statistically subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA)
using JMP-5 (SAS, 2002). Separate Analysis of variance was
performed over the three lupine-cereal combinations to determine
yield and yield component of each cereal crops. However,
combined analysis of variance was conducted over the three
lupine-cereal combinations to determine land use efficiency using
land equivalent ratio of each cropping system. In all the
comparisons, the level of significance was set at α = 0.05. Mean
comparison for the treatments were computed using each pair
Turkey-HSD test for parameters found to be significantly different at
a given level of significant.
Phenology
Bitew et al.
2291
Table 2. Effect of lupine-cereal intercrops on date of heading and maturity of cereals at Adet Agricultural research center,
West Gojam in 2009.
Treatments and statistics
Sole wheat
25% Lupine+100% wheat
50% Lupine+100% wheat
75% Lupine+100% wheat
CV (%)
Sole barely
25% Lupine+100% barley
50% Lupine+100% barley
75% Lupine+100% barley
CV (%)
Sole finger millet
25% Lupine+100% f/millet
50% Lupine+100% f/millet
75% Lupine+100% f/millet
LSD (0.05)
CV (%)
Mean
50 % DH
Lupine–wheat intercropping
62.00a
61.33a
61.67a
61.67a
1.208
Lupine–Barely intercropping
50.67a
50.67a
51.00a
51.33a
0.98
Lupine–Finger millet intercropping
a
104.33
104.67a
103.33a
103.67a
2.60
50 % DM
128.33a
129.00a
128.33a
128.33a
0.55
85.67a
85.33a
86.00a
86.00a
0.47
158.67c
160.00b
162.33a
163.00a
0.23
0.25
Values (means) connected by different superscript letters are significantly (P<0.05) different within columns according to Tukey-HSD
tests. DH: 50 % date of heading and DM: 50 % date of maturity. F/millet: finger millet.
efficient utilization of the growth resources thereby
increases
yield component parameters of lupine
(Gabatshele et al., 2012).
The result also in parallel with the findings of
Gabatshele et al. (2012), who found that Maize planted in
Maize-cowpea intercropping, had longer flowering data
as compared to maize planted in sole maize. Lupine
growth causes high shading effect over the finger millet
and then delayed maturity period. On the other hand, non
significant differences (P>0.05) were observed to barley
and wheat days to heading and days to maturity in
intercropping in any change in companion crop proportion
when compared to sole cropped (Table 2). This is
probably because barley uses growth resources without
lupine crop competition throughout all growth stages.
Hence, barley has rapid and short growing period (85
days) as well as tillering ability and early germination (6
days). Barley dominates the minor crop (lupine) in all
proportions in the system. Similarly, wheat had the
second fast and short growing period (128 days) in
lupine-wheat intercropping but much less than barley and
used growth resources earlier than the minor crop
(lupine) with a high competitive ability.
Growth and yield components
The plant height of finger millet was significantly affected
by intercropped lupine proportion (P<0.05) in the case of
lupine-finger millet intercropping system (Table 3).
Maximum plant height was recorded at 75:100 seeding
ratio (114.0 cm) due to struggle for light in such very
dense stands while minimum plant height was observed
in finger millet pure stand (102.7 cm) which did not differ
statistically from 25:100 seeding ratio probably due to
lower inter-specific competition for growth resources
especially light between the component species (Table
3). However, finger length (cm), number of finger per
plant and tiller per plant of finger millet were not
significantly (P>0.05) affected by studied treatments
(Table 3).Likewise, the plant height (cm), spike length
(cm), seed per spike, tiller per plant, population per m2
and 1000-seed weight (gram) of barley and wheat were
not significantly affected by the same treatments (P>0.05)
when each crop was intercropped with lupine in three
seeding ratios (Table 3).
Intercropping lupine with barley and wheat in three
seeding ratios did not show different response as
compared to respective sole cropped (Table 3). This was
probably because of early sowing of cereals which helps
the crop to express its potential and makes favorable
condition in utilization of growth resources in lupinecereal intercropping. The result is in agreement with
Gabatshele et al. (2012), who stated that maize growth
and yield component were not significantly affected by
maize-cowpea intercropping in different seeding ratios.
2290
Afr. J. Agric. Res.
Table 3. Effect of lupine-cereal intercrops in additive series on growth and yield component of cereals at Adet Agricultural research center,
West Gojam in 2009.
Sole wheat
25% Lupine+100% wheat
50% Lupine+100% wheat
75% Lupine+100% wheat
CV (%)
153.22
156.33a
a
151.00
151.00a
4.63
Mean
SP (F)L (cm)
SE/SP (F/PL)
Lupine–wheat intercropping
a
a
7.73
17.00
a
7.73
16.73a
a
7.93
17.13a
a
7.80
16.00a
4.76
3.9
Sole barely
25% Lupine+100% barley
50% Lupine+100% barley
75% Lupine+100% barley
CV (%)
113.00a
115.73a
114.53a
116.53a
2.44
Lupine–barely intercropping
9.13a
21.27a
a
9.20
22.60a
a
9.07
20.60a
a
10.07
21.47a
6.75
8.21
17.40a
17.83a
18.07a
18.27a
2.99
1160.89a
1220.89a
1666.66a
1450.63a
29.62
39.06a
38.82a
39.01a
39.00a
0.92
Sole f/millet
25% Lupine+100% F/millet
50% Lupine-+00% F/millet
75% Lupine+100% F/millet
LSD (0.05)
CV (%)
102.67b
103.79b
111.47ab
114.03a
7.10
3.29
Lupine–finger millet intercropping
9.37a
8.13a
a
8.99
8.40a
a
8.89
8.27a
a
8.81
8.20a
3.76
7.13
12.20a
10.73a
9.00a
10.60a
26.04
147.33a
212.67a
181.67a
198.67a
16.85
***
***
***
***
-
Treatments and statistics
HP(cm)
a
TI/PL
ST/m2
TSW (gram)
16.33
15.87a
15.13a
13.47a
18.77
a
317.11
363.77a
339.11a
325.55a
6.29
a
21.25
22.28a
22.51a
22.07a
3.61
a
Values (means) connected by different superscript letters are significantly (P<0.05) different within columns according to Tukey- HSD tests.HP: Plant height
in cm; SP (F) L: Spike length (cm) of barley and wheat and finger length (cm) of finger millet; SE/SP: Seed per spike of barley and wheat; TI/PL: Tiller
2:
per plant; F/PL: Finger per plant; ST/m Stand cover per meter square and TSW: Thousand seed weight.***Difficult to measure.
Competitive ability of barley in particular and wheat in
general for growth resources was higher than lupine in all
seeding ratios which was also confirmed by Yayeh et al.
(2014). This result was in agreement with the conclusion
of Brandt et al. (1989), who found that no effect of
intercropping clover cultivars on wheat yield components
and phenological parameters.
wheat combinations at all seeding ratios (Table 4) due to
absence of inter-specific competition. Generally, at high
crop proportion, lupine reduced the biomass yield of the
wheat component. This result corroborates with
Hauggaard-Nielsen et al. (2005), who found that wheat
biomass yields falling with increased plant density in
wheat-pea intercropping.
Biomass, grain yield and harvest index
Barely biomass yield
Biomass yield
The biomass yield of barely revealed a non significant
effect of companion crop proportions (P>0.05) in the case
of lupine-barely intercropping (Table 4). This could be
explained due to nearly complete dominance of barely
over lupine in all proportions at the early stage of lupine,
and so no inter-specific competition of growth resources
between component species that reduces the biomass
yield of barely.
This is a common observation that one species grows
faster than the other(s) in intercrops. A faster initial
growth, that often leads progressively to dominance in
terms of resource capture and thus to prospects of greater
biomass growth and yield (Fukai and Trenbath, 1993).
Wheat biomass yield: The results showed that the
biomass yield of wheat in lupine-wheat combinations
significantly (P<0.05) influenced by intercropped seeding
proportions (Table 4). Although, there was a general
reduction in the biomass yield of wheat as a result of
intercropping as compared to sole cropped wheat, lowest
biomass yield was recorded in lupine-wheat intercropping
at 75:100 seeding ratio (3666 kg/ha) (Table 4). This could
be due to competition for light and nutrients. In the same
experiment, the highest biomass yield was recorded in
sole cropped wheat (7000 kg/ha) as compared to lupine-
Bitew et al.
2293
Table 4. Effect of lupine-cereal intercrops on grain yield, biomass yield and harvest index of cereals at Adet
Agricultural Research Center, West Gojam, in 2009.
Treatments and statistics
Mean
BY
HI
LI
Sole wheat
25 % Lupine+100 % wheat
50 % Lupine+100 % wheat
75 % Lupine+100 % wheat
LSD (0.05)
CV (%)
GY
Lupine–wheat intercropping
2030a
2494a
a
2127
1935a
NS
9.85
7000a
4667ab
5667ab
3667b
19.98
23.32
29.77a
54.08a
39.99a
52.79a
NS
19.49
18.13a
17.45a
13.67a
11.90a
NS
35.6
Sole barely
25 % Lupine+100 % barley
50 % Lupine+100 % barley
75 % Lupine+100 % barley
LSD (0.05)
CV (%)
Lupine–barely intercropping
3805a
2845a
a
2912
3301a
NS
16.30
10667a
8417a
9400a
9267a
NS
11.48
35.57a
33.79a
31.17a
35.85a
NS
10.73
22.00a
21.43a
11.13a
16.70a
NS
39.5
Sole finger millet
25 % Lupine+100 % f/millet
50 % Lupine+100 % f/millet
75 % Lupine+100 % f/millet
LSD (0.05)
CV (%)
Lupine–finger millet intercropping
2936a
a
2323
2389a
1935a
24.29
18667a
22000a
22000a
23333a
16.55
15.58a
10.44b
10.97ab
8.50b
3.60
15.86
20.32a
16.00ab
15.87ab
11.63b
5.31
16.68
Values (means) connected by different superscript letters are significantly (P<0.05) different within columns according to TukeyHSD tests. GY: Grain yield in kg/ha; BY: Biomass yield in kg/ha; LI: Lodging index in % and F/millet: finger millet.
In the present study, this is true particularly for lupinebarley intercropping systems. However, due to the same
reason to the reduction of wheat biomass yield in lupinewheat intercropping, there was a general decrease in
barley biomass yield in lupine-barley intercrops from sole
barley (10667 kg/ha) to 50:100 (9400 kg/ha) ,75:100
(9267 kg/ha) and 25:100 (8400 kg/ha) seeding ratios
(Table 4).
Finger millet biomass yield
Biomass of finger millet was not significantly affected by
intercropped seeding proportions (P>0.05) (Table 4).
However, the highest biomass yield was recorded over
the highest cropping proportion (75:100) (23333 kg/ha)
as compared to sole finger millet (18666 kg/ha) (Table 4).
This means, as the added proportion of the companion
cop increase, finger millet biomass yield also increased
(Table 4). This could be attributed to reduction of lodging
due to intercropping across increasing cropping
proportions. Lupines usually hold up lodging of finger
millet when they were grown together and in turn protect
reduction of finger millet yield. Increased in plant height of
finger millet in line with seeding ratios might be also
contributed to increase in biomass yield.
Grain yield
The intercropped lupine-cereal seeding proportions did
not affect grain yield of cereals (P>0.05) (Table 4). The
present results in agreement with Rudnicki and
Galezewski (2007), who reported that lupine presence in
lupine-oat intercropping in different seeding proportions,
did not affect the grain yields of oat. This situation allows
the cereal to be maintained at or near the optimum
monocrop population and yield which is similar to the
existing farmers’ practices. It is similar to Natarajan and
Willey (1980), who reported that 2 sorghum: 1 pigeon pea
seeding ratios, sorghum growth was not affected by the
presence of pigeon pea, and the farmers' primary
objective of maintaining a ‘full’ sorghum yield was
achieved if the density of the intercropped sorghum was
equivalent to the sole crop optimum. Though, there were
no significant difference between seeding ratios, grain
yield reduction was pronounced in lupine-wheat (from
2400 to 1935 kg/ha) and lupine-finger millet (from 2300 to
1935 kg/ha) intercrops from a lower to a higher seeding
ratios, while the reverse is true for barley (from 2800
2294
Afr. J. Agric. Res.
to 3301 kg/ha) in lupine-barley intercropping (Table 4).
Sole cropped grain yield of barley (3805 kg/ha) and
finger millet (2936 kg/ha) were higher than each
intercropped with lupine perhaps due to the fact that
absence of inter-specific competition in sole cropping,
though, uneven rainfall distribution during the growing
period and other factors (Figure 2) considerably reduced
over all grain yields of cereal species. This was in
agreement with the findings of Gardner and Boundy
(1983), who noted that yield depression of cereal by
lupine in intercropping. Similarly, Chetty (1983) reported
that little depression of the yield of finger millet by fodder
legumes, field beans, Dolichos lablab and Lucerne.
However, the reverse is true for wheat in lupine-wheat
intercropping. Maximum wheat grain yield in lupine-wheat
combinations at 25:100 seeding ratios (2494 kg/ha) than
sole cropped wheat (203 kg/ha) could be due to lower
septoria infestation and differences with respect to
resource use in both time (e.g. crops of differing growth
phenologies), space (e.g. crops of different rooting depth)
and physiology (e.g. legume and non-legume crops
differing in source of N) could gave rise to more efficient
resource capture and/or use in intercrops than
corresponding sole crops.
In terms of competition, this means that crops grown in
mixture do not compete for exactly the same ecological
niche and that competition between crop species is
therefore weaker than between plants of the same
species (Yayeh et al., 2014). This was similarly reported
by the competitive production principle in which if the two
species cannot occupy the same niche, which is to say
they cannot compete with one another intensely
(Vandermeer, 1989).
This is in agreement with Sarunaite et al. (2009), who
reported that the wheat intercropped with lupine, bean
and pea produced significantly higher grain yield than
wheat in sole crop. Similarly, Chen et al. (2004) reported
that increased cereal seed yield in legume-cereal mixture
may be attributed to nitrogen fixing ability of legumes and
extensive root system of cereals. This result inconsistent
with Gardner and Boundy (1983), who reported that high
lupine seed proportion, causes reduction in wheat yields
in lupine-wheat intercropping.
Harvest index
Low crop harvest index is the major cause of less crop
yield (Murray et al., 2010). Analysis of variance indicated
that harvest index of finger millet was significantly
(P<0.05) influenced by intercropped seeding proportions
in lupine-finger millet intercropping systems (Table 4).
The highest harvest index was recorded in sole cropped
finger millet (15.58%) followed by 50:100 seeding ratio
(10.97%) while the lowest harvest index was recorded in
75:100 (8.50%) and 25:100 (10.4380%) seeding ratios
(Table 4). In general, lowest harvest index was recorded
in intercropping system than sole cropping system
probably due to higher competition from the intercropped
lupine.
Reduction in plant height lowered the dry weight of the
vegetative parts and thereby lowered the straw yield
which resulted in an increased harvest index. Harvest
index was positively correlated with grain yield but
negatively correlated with vegetative growth (Murray et
al., 2010; Yayeh et al., 2014). However, intercropped
seed proportion in lupine-wheat and lupine-barley
intercropping did not significantly (P>0.05) affect harvest
index of wheat and barley as compared to the respective
sole cropped (Table 4).
Lodging
Generally, two types of lodging were occurring in cereals
during this experiment. These are: wheat and barley root
lodging in the case of lupine-barley and lupine-wheat
combinations early in the season and finger millet stem
breakage in the case of lupine-finger millet later in the
season as the stalk becomes more brittle due to
maturation (Table 4). Lodging in barely was often a result
of the combined effects of a tall standing and large head
crop, diseased plant (net blotch and scald) and wind.
Lodging in wheat was often a result of the combined
effects of diseased plant (Septoria Infestation) and wind.
Likewise, lodging in finger millet was caused by the
weight of the higher internodes of the stems plus leaves
and heads and wind.
Wheat and barley lodging did not affected significantly
by lupine-wheat and lupine-barley intercropping in three
seeding ratios (P>0.05) (Table 4). This is might be due to
lupine at the early stage in all lupine-barely intercropping
was near to completely dominated by barely, and so
barely did not physically supported by lupine. Though,
statistically not significant, lodging was more pronounced
under barley and wheat sole cropping as compared to
intercropping (Table 4). Highest lodging percentage was
recorded in sole barley (22%) and sole wheat (18.13%)
as compared to all lupine-barely and lupine-wheat
intercropping system. Moreover, as seeding ratios
increases in the combination, barley and wheat lodging
was reduced (Table 4).
This corroborate with Beyenesh (2009), who reported
that barley was sensitive to lodging under sole cropping
than mixtures. Nonetheless, finger millet lodging was
significantly (P<0.05) affected due to intercropping in
different seeding ratios in the case of lupine-finger millet
intercropping (Table 4). The present study indicated that
lodging was highly reduced in all lupine-finger millet
combinations as compared to sole cropped finger millet
(20.32%). Moreover, lupine-finger millet combination at
75:100 seeding ratio (11.63%) highly reduced lodging as
compared to 25:100 (16.00%) and 50:100 seeding ratios
(15.87%) which were statistically on par with each other
Bitew et al.
2295
Table 5. Land use efficiency of lupine-cereal intercrops at three seeding ratios at Adet Agricultural Research
Center, West Gojam in 2009.
Cropping system
Sole lupine
Sole wheat
Sole barely
Sole finger millet
Lupine: wheat
Lupine: wheat
Lupine: wheat
Lupine: barley
Lupine: barley
Lupine: barley
Lupine: f/millet
Lupine: f/millet
Lupine: f /millet
Seed proportion (%)
100
100
100
100
25:100
50: 100
75: 100
25: 100
50: 100
75: 100
25: 100
50: 100
75:100
Land use efficiency (%)
0
0
0
0
33.4
31.3
48.9
-24.0
-21.0
-11.0
9.7
23.4
29.4
Values (means) connected by different superscript letters are significantly (P<0.05) different within columns according to TukeyHSD tests. LER: Land equivalent ratio.
(Table 4). In other words, finger millet was physically
supported by lupine particularly in high lupine seed
proportion. This result was in agreement with Putnam
(1993), who reported that in lupine-pea combination the
lupine prevent lodging of pea, and the pea provides an
earlier canopy closure for weed control in the lupine.
Barley culms (stem) were regaining their upright position
and gave optimum yield due to lodging before flowering
and prevailing favorable weather conditions. Similarly,
finger millet lodging did not much affect the yield probably
due to lodging occurs after the plant had matured and
finger millet was physically supported by lupine but it
might reduce the amount of harvestable grain.
Land use efficiency
In assessments of crop productivity of sole cropping
systems, a useful expression is mass yield (mass per unit
area). However, in intercropping systems, direct
comparison is difficult because products are different for
the different plant species growing on one piece of land
(Beets, 1982). In this case, crop productivity should be
evaluated using a common unit. A widely used method to
know land use efficiency in terms of hectare of land
saved due to intercropping or in terms of percentage of
yield advantage or disadvantage is the land equivalent
ratio (LER) (Beets, 1982). Total land equivalent ratio
(LER) was significantly higher than 1.00, which shows an
advantage from intercropping over pure stands in lupinewheat and lupine-finger millet combinations in terms of
the use of environmental resources for plant growth.
The combined land use efficiency was greatest in the
cases of lupine-wheat mixture at the 75:100 seeding ratio
(48.9%), followed by the same combination at the 25:100
seeding ratio (33.4%) and at 50:100 seeding ratio
(31.3%) (Table 5). This indicates that 0.489 ha, 0.334 ha
and 0.313 ha more area would be required by a sole
cropping system to equal the yield of intercropping
system.
The second crop combination which gave higher land
use efficiency was lupine-finger millet at 75:100 seed
ratio (29.4%) followed by the same combination at 50:100
(23.4%) and 25:100 (9.7%) seeding ratios which causes,
29.4, 23.4 and 9.7% higher yield than sole cropping
(Table 5). These findings were in agreement with
Caballero et al. (1995), who reported a mixed stand
advantage at lower oat seeding proportions in common
vetch-oat combination. Similarly, compared with
corresponding sole crops, yield advantages have been
recorded in pearl millet-cluster bean (Yadav and Yadav,
2001). On the other hand, total LERs below 1.00 were
found in all lupine-barley combinations, which gave a
disadvantage of these mixtures over pure stands (Table
5). This result was in agreement with Ghosh (2004), who
reported that common vetch–barley and common vetchtriticale mixtures shows a disadvantage over pure stands.
This could be due to competitive ability of barely was
higher than lupine.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The present study demonstrated that, except days to
maturity of finger millet, intercropping of lupine with
wheat, barley and finger millet at three different seeding
ratios had no effect on phenological attributes of cereal
species. The agronomic attributes of most cereals were
not significantly affected when they were intercropped
with lupine in all seeding ratios except finger millet plant
2296
Afr. J. Agric. Res.
height, harvest index and wheat total biomass yield.
Cereal growth was not affected by the intercropped
lupine, and the farmers' primary objective of maintaining
a ‘full’ cereal yield was attained.
The maximum lupine seed proportion was superior to
the lowest when intercropped with wheat and finger
millet. Intercropping higher proportion of lupine with
wheat and finger millet did help much in increasing total
grain yield and biomass yield without affecting main crop
yield. Intercropping lupine with cereals gave physical
support for cereals particularly in high lupine seed
proportion. The combined yield advantage was greater
than one in the cases of lupine-wheat followed by lupinefinger millet mixtures at all seeding ratios. Hence, two of
the best combinations which were differed from what
farmers currently use and gave higher land use efficiency
were the lupine-wheat mixture at the 75:100 seeding ratio
(49.4%) followed by the lupine-finger millet mixtures at
the 75:100 seeding ratio (29.4%). These mixtures seem
promising in the development of sustainable crop
production with a limited use of external inputs.
Conflict of Interests
The authors have not declared any conflict of interests.
ACKNOWLEGEMENT
The authors appropriately acknowledge Dejene District
Agricultural and Rural Development Office, Adet
Agricultural Research Center and the financial support
provided by the rural capacity building project
implemented in Ethiopia.
REFERENCES
Adet Agricultural Research Center (AARC) (2002). Summary of
research achievements (1987-2001), Adet, Ethiopia.
Adet Meteorological Station (2009). Climatic data. Amhara Regional
State of Ethiopia; Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
Aleligne K, Steven F (1987). Initial results of informal survey Adet
farming system, Gojam region, and working p. 2187, IAR, and Bair
Dar, Ethiopia.
Ali K, Kenneni G, Ahmed S, Malhotra R, Beniwal S, Makkook K, Halila
MH (2006). Food and forage legumes of Ethiopia: Progress and
prospects. Proceeding of the Workshop On Food And Forage
Legumes, 22-26 Sep. 2003, AA, Ethiopia, ICARA, Aleppo, Syria, p.
351.
Bantie YB, Abera FA, Woldegiorgis TD (2014). Competition indices of
intercropped lupine (Local) and small cereals in additive series in
West Gojam, North Western Ethiopia. Am. J. Plant Sci. 5:1296-1305.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2014.59143
Beets WC (1982). Multiple cropping and tropical farming systems.
Gower, London, Britain, and West Views Press, Colorado, U.S.A.
Beyenesh Z (2009). Effect of variety and plant population density on
yield and yield components of barley and wheat mixed cropping
(Hanfets), unpublished M.Sc. thesis, Mekelle University, Ethiopia. In:
Mitiku H., Berhanu and Amare B (2007). The status of soil fertility in
Tigray. In.: Fetien A. (ed) Diversity, adaptation and GxE Interaction of
Barley (Horduem vulgare L,) genotypes in Northern Ethiopia.
pp. 1-32.
Brandt JE, Hons FM, Haby VA (1989). Effects of subterranean clover
interseeding on grain yield, yield components, and nitrogen content of
soft red winter wheat. J. Agric. Prod. 2:347-351.
Caballero R, Goicoechea EL, Hernaiz PJ (1995). Forage yields and
quality of common vetch and oat sown at varying seeding ratios and
seeding rates of common vetch. Field Crop Res. 41:135–140.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(94)00114-R
Caldicott JJB, Nuttall AM (1979). A method for the assessment of
lodging in cereal crops. Netherland J. Agric. Bot. 15:88-91.
Central Statistical Agency (2004). Agricultural sample survey.
2003/2004 Volume IV Report on land utilization. Statistical Bulletin
No. 302. July 2004 Addis Ababa.
Central Statistical Agency (2007). Agricultural sample survey.
2006/2007 Volume I Report on area and production of crops.
Statistical Bulletin No. 388 .July 2007 Addis Ababa.
Central Statistical Agency (2013). Agricultural sample survey, volume
III, Report on area and production. Statistical Bulletin. July 2013
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Chen C, Westcott M, Neill K, Wichman D, Knox M (2004). Row
configuration and nitrogen application for barley-pea intercropping in
Montana.
J.
Agron.
96:1730-1738.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/agronj2004.1730
Connolly J, Goma HC, Rahim K (2001). The information content of
indicators in intercropping research. Agric. Ecol. Environ. 87(2):191207.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00278-X
Crews TE, Peoples MB (2004). Legume versus fertilizer sources of
nitrogen: Ecological tradeoffs and human needs. Agric. Ecol. Environ.
102:279-297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2003.09.018
EIAR (Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research) (1992). Crop
production survey. EARO, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Fukai S, Trenbath BR (1993). Processes determining intercrop
productivity and yields of component crops. Field Crop Res. 34:247271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(93)90117-6
Gabatshele M, Legwaila TK, Marokane WM (2012). Effects of
Intercropping on the Performance of Maize and Cowpeas in
Botswana. Int. J. Agric. For. 2(6):307-310
Gardner WK, Boundy KA (1983). The acquisition of phosphorus by
Lupines albus L. IV.: The effect of interplanting wheat and white
lupine on the growth and mineral composition of the two species.
Plant Soil 70:391-402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02374894
Ghosh PK (2004). Growth, yield, competition and economics of
Groundnut/cereal fodder intercropping systems in the semi-arid
tropics
of
India.
Field
Crops
Res.
88:227-237.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2004.01.015
Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Ambus P, Jensen ES (2001). Interspecific
competition, N use and interference with weeds in pea-barley
intercropping.
Field
Crop
Res.
70:101-109.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(01)00126-5
Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Mette Klindt, A., Bjarne, J. and Erik Steen, J.
(2005). Density and relative frequency effects on competitive
interactions and resource use in pea-barley intercrops. Field Crop
Res. Abstr. [Unpublished]. Accessed in, February, 2010
at:htt://orgprints.org/4053/
Jansen PCM (2006). Lupines albus L. In. Brink, M. & Belay, G. (Editors)
PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical Africa) Wageningen,
Netherlands.
Liebman M, Dyck E (1993). Crop rotation and intercropping strategies
for
weed
management.
Appl.
Ecol.
3:92-122.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1941795
Mitchell CE Tilman D, Groth JV (2002). Effects of grassland plant
species diversity, abundance, and composition on foliar fungal
disease. Ecology 83:1713-1726. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/00129658(2002)083[1713:EOGPSD]2.0.CO;2
Murray U, Jeff B, Matthew F (2010). Variability in harvest index of grain
crops and potential significance for carbon accounting: Examples
from Australian agriculture. Adv. Agron. 105:173–219.
Natarajan M, Willey RW (1980). Sorghum-pigeon pea intercropping and
the effects of plant population density on growth and yield. J. Agric.
Sci. 95(1):51-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600029269 Nigusei T (1994). Performance of maize/bean intercropping systems
under low and medium rainfall situations, unpublished M.Sc. thesis, Bitew et al.
Alemaya University of Agriculture, Ethiopia.
Petch A, Smith RW (1985). Effect of lupine management on the yield of
subsequent wheat crops in a lupine–wheat rotation. Aust. J. Exp.
Agric. 25:603–613. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/EA9850603
Putnam DH (1993). An interdisciplinary approach to the development of
lupine as an alternative crop. In: J. Janick and J.E. Simon (Eds.) New
crops. New York.
Rudnicki F, Galezewski L (2007). Response of oat and yellow lupine to
their various participation in intercropping and their productivity in
intercrops: Yielding of intercrops. Agriculture 516(2):171-179.
Abstract.
Sarunaite L, Deveikyte I, Semaskiene R, Kadziuliene Z (2009). The
influence of grain legumes on spring wheat yield formation and
phytosanitary state. Agron. Res. 7:465–470
SAS Institute Inc. (2002). JMP-5 Statistical Software, Version 5.Cary,
NC, USA.
2297
Vandermeer J (1989). The ecology of intercropping. Cambridge
University
Press,
New
York.http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511623523 PMid:2736005.
Willey RW, Osiru DSO (1972). Studies on mixtures of maize and beans
(Phaseolus vulgaris) with particular reference to plant population. J.
Agric.
sci.
79:517-529.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600025909
Yayeh BB, Fetien Abay A, Tadesse DW (2001). The performance of
cultivars of pearl millet and cluster bean under sole cropping and
intercropping systems in arid zone conditions in India. Exp. Agric.
37:231–240.http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0014479701002046

Download Report